Directors and officers insurers backdating claims face Japanese sex webcam free try

To respond, Amerix retained counsel and paid more than 0,000 in fees and expenses.ACE denied coverage, asserting in part that the subpoena and investigative demand did not constitute claims.

Most public companies consider the need to procure D&O insurance coverage a given—the reality of an increased number of derivative, securities, and fiduciary lawsuits.

Importantly, the policy at issue did not define “claim.” Relying on the definition of “claim” in , the court held that “claim” meant “a demand for something due or believed to be due.” In an attempt to circumvent its coverage obligation, Federal Insurance Co.

argued that the Department of Justice’s investigation did not constitute a claim because it did not demand money.

Others however, are more narrow and may define “claim” to include only demands for monetary and nonmonetary relief, civil or criminal proceedings, or actions commenced by the return of an indictment.

A lawsuit is only one mechanism by which coverage may be triggered.

Search for directors and officers insurers backdating claims face:

directors and officers insurers backdating claims face-16directors and officers insurers backdating claims face-12

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “directors and officers insurers backdating claims face”